> Hi all again,
>
> Speaking of this subject again, I have read in the archives that FreeBSD
> has a method of building the whole source tree using the "make world"
> command. Although this is a nice feature, but isn't too much risky to
> upgrade the whole system in one shot?
>
> What if something breaks down after you've recompiled? Your system would
> be dead. In Linux, on the contrary, there's no such feature and you'll
> need to take the server anyways to upgrade it, which seems as a good way
> of doing things. In the meantime, another backup server can take its
> position. I guess in this fashion, Linux is better than FreeBSD... or
> did I miss something here?
>
The make world is done in two steps: first is everything compiled to
/var/obj, then everything is installed.
Per definition production servers run freebsd-stable, which by definition
are never broken :-).
By definition freebsd-current are not for production and are allowed to be
broken.
You could compile on a testserver; when you are satisfied it works, you can
install other servers from that via nfs.
I have updated servers while they were online without problems.
An OS shouldn't limit you from taking the risc of shooting yourself in the
foot if you feel you have a legitimate reason to do so.
Leif
> /John
>
>
> Sergey Babkin wrote:
> >
> > By the way, speaking of that, things in FreeBSD tend to be more
> > synchronous with docs than in Linux. Also FreeBSD has much better
> > backwards compatibility (though alas still not as good as commercial
> > systems). In Linux the applications tend to break and require
> > recompilation when the kernel is upgraded to the next
> > second-digit version.
> >
> > -SB
>
> --
> Regards,
>
> phpStop.com http://www.phpstop.com/
> stop here. start everywhere. mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
> To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
>
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
